Providing resources to fellow teachers looking to better their teaching,is a responsibility that educators must undertake in order to continue the quest for learning.  The article below provided a new insight into an assessment practice that I have participated in for 9 years.  If your school district uses AIMSweb or something similar, and is using Phonological Segmentation Fluency (PSF), this is a good article to inform your thinking.  The authors performed research and found that students who meet the PSF benchmarks may still have deficits in phonemic awareness.  Other more in depth phonemic awareness practices provide stronger correlations between reaching proficiency and solid literacy skills.


Kilpatrick, D. A. (2012), Phonological Segmentation Assessment is Not Enough: A comparison of Three Phonological Awareness Tests With First and Second Graders. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27(2), 150-165

Although there has been much research on phonological awareness and reading, the research is limited on the different choices and interpretation of the phonological awareness tests available. This study examined the relationship between decoding both real and pseudo words and three phonological awareness tests. These tests include segmentation, blending, and manipulation. The tests were given to an unselected population of first grade and second grade students. Segmentation, the more popular test stemming from a body of best practice research, was found to have the weakest correlation with reading. Despite its popularity in educational settings, phonological segmentation may be less useful than phonological manipulation or blending in assessing phonological awareness and the impact it has on reading at these grade levels.

After reviewing the articles by Erickson, “Concept-Based Teaching and Learning,” and Wiggins and McTighle, “Understanding by Design”, explicit connections can be made to the backward design (BD) process. Both practices of concept-based instruction (CBI) can transform our planning and instruction.

1.    BD starts by asking an essential based question before designing a unit. CBI starts by developing a concept based unit around the central question.

2.    BD stresses that students understand what they are learning by encouraging student led questions, not just teaching facts.  CBI treats the learner with principles and compliments the thinking of the individual by bringing understanding out from the student rather than telling them what to understand.

 

3.    BD deeps in mind the child’s point of view when formulating questions, rather than the teacher’s point of view.  CBI supports the need for unit instruction that is designed for deeper conceptual understanding. 

 

4.    BD encourages, through higher level questioning, the potential for engaging students by allowing the students the freedom to justify the ideas through inquiry and construction.  CBI also uses higher level questioning from Bloom’s Taxonomy, which promotes motivation for learning.  Students who engage emotionally as well as intellectually are likely to be engaged in the concept.

 

5.    BD promotes developing the understanding of a concept or unit.  Curriculum in not just pulling together random activities that the students are involved in, but demonstrating intellectual scaffolding.  CBI focuses on the curriculum being concept-based in order to foster a transfer of knowledge, deep conceptual understanding, synergistic thinking, intercultural understanding and personal intellectual engagement.  (Erickson, 2012)

Clearly, there were explicitly connections between the two articles on backward design and concept-based instruction.  In our district, our content specialists design curriculum maps starting with essential questions.  The mapping is rooted in the form of backward design.  In our classrooms, we need to make the process of teaching the units fit our student’s understanding about the concept.  We need to keep in mind their prior knowledge and move into questioning that will engage and motivate them to dig deeper into learning.

Reflections by Lisa Tax and Beth Nord

In 1990, when I first graduated from college and had the dream of being a teacher, I had absolutely no idea what it really entailed.  When I was asked why I wanted to be a teacher, I would respond with:  I like kids, it would be fun, I want to make a difference, and all kids can learn.  Fourteen years later, I landed my first job in Title 1.  At that point, I had two kids including one who had been in Title 1.  As the years progressed, and I lived with a child with learning needs, it became clear to me that what I thought I knew had become much more complicated.  I  have the same beliefs as I did when I was younger, but now they have developed deeper meaning. Making a difference now means getting totally involved with the lives of my students.  I meet and help parents understand the development of literacy and how they can best help their child.  I am an advocate for struggling learners within the school and in the community.  Lastly, I am a champion for kids in my classroom, helping them to feel success and to grow confidence in themselves.  I do like and still have fun with kids, but it is so much more.  I wipe their tears, encourage and push them, laugh and listen to them, and sometimes counsel them. 

My teaching practices revolve around helping kids be successful in reading.  Learning doesn’t come easy for all kids; thus, I see it as my responsibility to help them find their inner confidence.  I great them at the door, welcome them into our learning lessons, and encourage them to read and have a good day.  I encourage them to trust their inner voice.  Many times they know how to decode a word, I see the word on their lips, but they are insecure with saying it.  I encourage them to trust themselves.  Obviously if my beliefs are not aligned with my practices, growth and success will not happen for the students I see every day. 

When building communities of care, Generativity helps to build mutually caring environments that focus on the contributions of each and the whole. When I reflect on how I bring about his mutual respect and care in my teaching, I thought about two parents that I have had the fortune to come to know over the years. We first crossed paths years ago when they had concerns about their daughter “Holly”. They knew she was struggling and were looking to me for help. They shared their beliefs on doing homework at night and I shared what I taught their daughter. As the years passed, it was clear that Holly was more than just behind in school. I was certain she has a reading disability.  I couldn’t just come out and tell them this, so little by little I would share with them what I was seeing and how it was impacting her learning.  At the same time, they would share with me all the exploratory learning they were doing at home.  They let her direct her learning at home exploring topics that were of interest to her.  They also would pull her out of school for several weeks a year to go on family driving trips.  I always affirmed them on this practice, as we did the same for our sons.  I found that kids, who have learning struggles, need to see the world first hand; thus, providing them the opportunity to visualize the topics they are learning about out of textbooks.  Anyhow, this past year we really had many heart to heart talks about their daughter.  I came out and told them I thought she needed alternative learning opportunities to be successful and that we should go ahead and get the testing.  They began to open up with me about their experiences of school and her dad shared with me that he dropped out of school in the 8^th grade.  Obviously, that was a difficult thing for him to admit to me.  He shared that he had a reading disability and that he was embarrassed that he couldn’t help his daughter.  He didn’t get the help that I was purposing for Holly.  As we talked with Holly, she didn’t understand what we were talking about.  She asked me what was going on and I explained to her that she was a very capable girl, and she just needed the teachers to teach her in the way she learned best.  That she could be a veterinarian s as long as she could have accommodations for her learning.  She immediately began to cry.  No one had ever told her at school that she could be successful; she could be what she wanted to be!  At that moment, I got tears in my eyes.  I knew, for Holly and her parents, I would always build up the capacity for generativity.   Caring, appreciating, and celebrating each other by adding value to the whole would always be more important than the curriculum I would teach.  Together Holly, her parents, and I each added value to the whole.  I will always strive to build communities of care.

As I move towards performing action research on my concept, phonemic awareness, I have some beginning ideas.  I have cleared 20 minutes in my schedule and I would like to do some pre-assessments using the CELF focusing on phonological awareness.  I will begin by reviewing the data from grade level screening of students in K and 1 using AIMSweb phonological segmentation fluency.  Now, research shows that this is a basic screener but does not identify all students who may need intensive instruction in phonemic awareness.  This will screen out the students who do poorly on the probe.  It will not, however, screen out the students who may need intervention but who do well on the probe.  I will also have to look at the MAPS data focusing on the phonemic awareness strands.  After identifying a group of students who have similar scores, I will give them the CELF to see where I will need to direct their instruction.  Then, I will break them into two groups.  One group will get intensive small group instruction from me.  The other will only get the balanced reading curriculum in the classroom.   I will need to pick a time frame to provide instruction.  During the instructional period, I will progress monitor both groups using the AIMSweb PSF.  Following the given instructional time, I will post assess both groups using AIMSweb PSF and CELF.  I will also review the data from the next scheduled MAPS testing.  I have to keep in mind that I keep my testing standardized.  I also need to plan the scope and sequence of my intensive intervention group.  The research that I have performed clearly states that by providing intensive instruction, kids will grow and have a better chance of reaching grade level proficiency in reading.  This research will give me a chance to see how controlled assessing and teaching impacts student learning and if I need to change how I teach PA.

I was reading the St. Cloud Times today and there was an article by AJ Kern about how Minnesota needs to raise it's standards in teaching.  He states that by requiring more expertise from teachers in their subject matter, this will assure top performance in education.   At one point he states "Research also shows master's degrees in "Teaching and Learning" and "Curriculum and Instruction" provide negligible benefits to students while costing Minnesota taxpayers."  Even though I went online and found where both of these quotes were written, I still take offense to this statement as I am obtaining my master's in teaching and learning right now.  How are my educational classes causing negligent benefits to my student?  Every single article or book I read and the research I am conducting is to provide a positive impact on my teaching.  Not only do I reflect on my teaching weekly, I also self reflect with an emphasis on growing and stretching my thinking personally.  Kern also states  "The U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told the American Enterprise Institution that an education master's degree-and bonuses-are an example of spending money on something that doesn't work."  Both statements seem contradictory, saying that we need more expertise from our teachers; thus when they go back to school for more education, it not only is a waste of money but is causing negligible benefits to students.  For the amount of time and cost that I am putting into my teaching, along with thousands of other educators, the state of Minnesota should be proud and supportive of their educators.  I will have to do some more research into why obtaining a master's degree in education is a waste of money and should not be linked to teacher bonus pay.  I would be interested in a discussion on how teachers could improve their wages without being linked to education.  Currently, the only way this can be done is by obtaining more education. Unlike big business, with chances of bonus pay, commissions, or advancements, teacher salaries are truly at the hands of the people in our communities and nation.